LEE — Court documents are shedding new light on the circumstances that led police to open fire on a Lee man outside his home late last year.

Police say Steve Amazeen threatened to shoot a Lee patrolman in the head moments before he was wounded by two other officers at the scene.

The Dec. 3, 2012, incident took place following a domestic dispute at Amazeen's home at 289 Lee Hook Road. Amazeen's wife called 911 at 12:05 a.m. that morning and reported Amazeen was suicidal, according to an affidavit filed by Lee Police Sgt. Brian Huppe.

The affidavit states that Amazeen became “enraged” when his wife asked for a divorce. He then allegedly told her to stay inside the house, shot a round into the floor, exited the home and shot another round into the air.

Police from Lee, Durham, Barrington, Newmarket, Strafford, Newfields and Epping converged on the property at about 12:21 a.m. They found Amazeen standing in the road west of his home. He was “holding a handgun” at the time, according to Huppe's affidavit.

“Officers on scene ordered him to drop the weapon and he did not,” Huppe's affidavit states. “Steven Amazon (sic) told Senior Officer Michael Lyczak that he knows he is wearing a bullet proof vest so he will have to shoot him in the head. Steven Amazeen then turned towards two Durham Officers who fired on Steven Amazeen striking him(.)”

That story appears to counter information provided by Amazeen's public defender, Joachim Barth. In court documents, Barth wrote that Amazeen's handgun was tucked into a holster when police located him on the road.

“When the police arrived, Mr. Amazeen was walking down the road away from his house. Upon request, he produced a handgun from his holster, and asked the police to shoot him,” Barth wrote in a Jan. 31 court motion. “After a lengthy 'stand-off' during which he repeatedly asked the police to shoot him, he was subsequently shot by police in the hip and shoulder after he made what police construed as menacing comments and gestures.”

Amazeen's wife told police that Amazeen had been “very depressed” before the incident as a result of his father's death in 2008, and because of the pending foreclosure of the family's home, according to the affidavit filed by Lee police. The woman said Amazeen takes the antidepressant Effexor.

Amazeen's attorney contends Amazeen was not taking “appropriate medication” at the time of the incident, and that he is now “stabilized medically and psychologically.” Barth characterized the event as an “effort to commit suicide during a depressive state.”

Amazeen was treated at Wentworth-Douglass Hospital after the shooting. He has since recovered, and he was released into the custody of a brother while he awaits trial on charges of reckless conduct and criminal threatening.

Earlier this month, Barth successfully argued for a Strafford County Superior Court judge to lower the amount specified in Amazeen's bail order from $100,000 to $10,000. Amazeen has only a “minor criminal history,” and does not have substance abuse issues, according to his attorney.

As part of Amazeen's bail conditions, Judge John Lewis has ordered his brother, Shawn Amazeen, of Deerfield, to be responsible for his supervision and see that he follows a curfew and does not become a threat to the community there. Amazeen is also being monitored with a GPS bracelet by the Strafford County Community Corrections program.

Lethal force investigation continues

In addition to the criminal charges pending against Amazeen, the attorney general's office is conducting a separate investigation into the use of lethal force by the police officers at the scene.

The woman in charge of the investigation, Senior Assistant Attorney General Susan Morrell, has refused to comment on the circumstances. The AG's office has also refused to release a preliminary statement regarding whether the use of force was justified — a move sometimes taken at the outset of an investigation.

In the wake of the shooting, Foster's was told by multiple sources — who asked to remain anonymous — that Amazeen pointed a weapon at police before he was shot. Morrell declined to comment on that assertion Monday.

She also declined to comment on what factors the attorney general's office studies during the course of an investigation into the use of lethal force, or what type of documents would be generated by the attorney general's office or by State Police during the course of an investigation into the use of lethal force.

“I don't feel comfortable on commenting in general while I'm in the midst of actually working on a case,” she said.

She added: “Generally we don't comment on investigative techniques, how we proceed with investigations, in any way in any of our cases.”

As a general rule of thumb, Morrell said, both civilians and law enforcement officers are entitled to use deadly force in New Hampshire when faced with deadly force — or the threat of deadly force.

“The short version, basically, is that anybody — including a law enforcement officer — is entitled to use deadly force when faced with the threat of deadly force being used against him or someone else,” she said.

Morrell has declined to predict when the now three-month-long investigation by the attorney general's office will conclude.

Criminal case pending in Strafford County

The Strafford County Attorney's office has been tasked with bringing charges against Amazeen.

Two criminal complaints filed in the wake of the shooting do not explicitly state that Amazeen pointed a gun at the officers. Information included in a felony criminal threatening complaint states that Amazeen “did purposely place police officers in fear of imminent physical contact by purposely threatening to shoot a police officer while [carrying] a handgun and refusing to drop the firearm then turning towards other police officers.”

County Attorney Tom Velardi also declined to comment Monday on whether police are claiming that Amazeen pointed a gun at them during the December incident. He said it would be “imprudent” to comment while the attorney general's investigation is ongoing. Rules of professional conduct that apply to prosecutors also prevent him from disclosing many facts of the case, he said.

New Hampshire lawmakers have taken pains in the last year to ensure that the public has a right to understand circumstances that lead to an arrest. A law that went into effect on Jan. 1 stipulates that arrest records are, by definition, subject to public disclosure. The law now states that an arrest record must include, at a minimum: the identity of the individual arrested; the identity of the arresting officer or officers; and a statement explaining why and how an arrest was made.

The county attorney's office is ultimately accountable for information released by police departments in the lead-up to a criminal trial, Velardi said.

He said it's still unclear how the new arrest record law comports with his duties to keep certain information confidential as a prosecutor.

“The only thing I'm really allowed to comment on is stuff that is immediately necessary for the public to know,” he said.